Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: cpus: Document 'qcom,freq-domain' property

[Manivannan Sadhasivam]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:46:37AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 04:20:37PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 21-10-20, 15:29, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 10:36:43AM +0800, Hector Yuan wrote:
> > > > Hi, Manivannan
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, 2020-10-20 at 21:09 +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > > Add devicetree documentation for 'qcom,freq-domain' property specific
> > > > > to Qualcomm CPUs. This property is used to reference the CPUFREQ node
> > > > > along with Domain ID (0/1).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml | 6 ++++++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml
> > > > > index 1222bf1831fa..f40564bf004f 100644
> > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.yaml
> > > > > @@ -290,6 +290,12 @@ properties:
> > > > >  
> > > > >        * arm/msm/qcom,kpss-acc.txt
> > > > >  
> > > > > +  qcom,freq-domain:
> > > > Do you mind to change "qcom, freq-domain" to common naming? or drop the
> > > > prefix. So that we can use this CPU node and map it to each freq-domain.
> > > > Thanks a lot. 
> > > 
> > > I can do that but did the domain value match for other platforms as well?
> > 
> > I am not sure if you can. The code needs to be backward compatible so it can
> > support all devices shipped with older bootloaders and latest kernels. And so
> > changing the bindings isn't a good idea normally.
> 
> It can be done. We'd need to do the following:
> 
> - schema defines the common property/binding.
> - The kernel supports both names and that is backported to stable.
> - Update all the Qcom dts files to the new binding
> 
> Whether we actually do that or not, I'd like to keep the option open. 
> Aligning the current proposals should be possible. My concern is more 
> about what's the next addition and non-cpu device support.
> 

In the meantime can we get this series merged?

Thanks,
Mani

> Rob